It feels to me that although he has "something", his experience is conditioned by the culture we live in. Full of drama, negativity, lostness and unnaturalness. Some people play with their 'realisations' ... but it seems to me to be bad faith.

It reminds me a of a story about Aleister Crowley turning up at the Gurdjieff Institute for the Harmonius Development of Man. Gurdjieff allowed him to stay and eat a meal, according to the custom of benevolence towards visitors, but eventually asked him to leave telling him he was "dirty inside". Crowley had accessed inner realms, but had fallen into bad faith and let darkness inside him.

Faith is something that these days we might not think very significant. Our stupid churches with the ignorant priests. But faith is protection from descending into the "darkside", and when you go inside suddenly meaning is brought to these things. Then there is a choice between the light and dark.

My sense is that there is free will; you have a choice but if you choose badly it is just possible for your soul to descend into a black hole of darkness, and not re-emerge. That is hell. But not a story this time, for real.

The way McKenna talks about things is like he is in the Matrix. He can only reflect with the eyes he has got, and they are not so good. And this is part of our culture ... people puncture their bodies with all sorts of junk, and cover this body (this temple) with ink. People laugh at how much damage they can do to themselves. Start a war kill a million people, and laugh. Wake up on Saturday morning and vomit their guts out after last night, and laugh about it.

Yes there is so much "choice", one dark road after another you can choose.

This culture is fallen. In the chaos there is some opening for people, but as you can see there are openings to the darkness as well as the light.

In ancient times there were people on the path who fell in love with their own psychic/magic powers, these Siddhas strayed off the path in love with their powers, like Narcissus and his reflection. Yes these allegorical stories do ultimately have real meaning - they can save you when you go deep. Ancient cultures implanted them in you so that when you needed their wisdom you would remember them.

I have a simple book here on Mahamudra. You sit ... just in a simple way ... and you sit ... and you sit.

You let everything drop, and the you just be ... you are "deeply" here and voyaging towards the Light.

I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

On negative emotions, Rebecca Nottingham's book on the Fourth Way has a practical discussion on elimination of negativity.

Of course it begins and ends with deeply noticing them. They have tremendous force. So my experience is when you act against them you fight like hell for 20 minutes. Then you do something else. In other words, when you work ... work. When you don't ... you are on R&R. You get results this way.

But RN's book is very good, discusses the practical things very well.

Also KM talks about elimination of fear so look him up (he likes John Sherman's just one look).

I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

I suppose I don't understand talk about enlightenment. What enlightenment demands is that we know something we have not experienced and experience something we do not know (CWG). We can't reach for it any more than we can reach for the presumed black hole in the middle of our galaxy.

And so you're either enlightened or deluded that you're enlightened or you do not have the knowlege/experience of enlightenment. I'm the last one and enlightenment, happily, is irrelevant to me. It is something that will happen or not happen--there's nothing I can or want to do about it so I don't worry about it. Anything I think about it can only be conceptual or delusional.

What is relevant to my very human life right here and right now is the delusion of fear. Anything I experience as negative comes from fear. A misalignment. And that is something I can and have been successfully doing something about.

Don't know Rebecca Nottingham. John Sherman's looking technique is easy and simple and it does do something--though I haven't worked out why or how it works. Recently I've found resonance with Conversations with God, by Walsch, though I can't fully explain why I like that work, maybe because it also talks about fear. And love.

Last edited by karmarider on Thu May 16, 2013 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

rideforever wrote:The way McKenna talks about things is like he is in the Matrix. He can only reflect with the eyes he has got, and they are not so good. And this is part of our culture ... people puncture their bodies with all sorts of junk, and cover this body (this temple) with ink. People laugh at how much damage they can do to themselves. Start a war kill a million people, and laugh. Wake up on Saturday morning and vomit their guts out after last night, and laugh about it.

It's true--Mckenna does give the impression that he sets himself apart from the rest of humanity. He's even condescending. This arrogance is contagious--you can see this energy in people who first read Mckenna and create an stand-offish attitude for themselves. Maybe it's good, it makes people question everything, and if go about intelligently, then we inevitably must question Mckenna himself.

Which people do, and some come to conclusion that he's Adyashanti--just more direct.

Maybe. Or maybe he's more like Chuck Palanhniuk. The joke might ultimately be on his admirers and imitators.

I recently reread McCenna's first book and, although i found it refreshing, if disturbing the first time, this reading I found it to be a fictional horror novel. The realization he describes sounds unattainable, soulless, and cold....the vampire analogy is apt. It's like a shunting into a parrallel universe, running near the "enlightenment" track, but on its dark side. I do like that he turns notions of enlightenment on their head, but suggests that the act of doing so means he' has the correct view of enlightenment. Just another little shop of horrors.

Onceler wrote:I recently reread McCenna's first book and, although i found it refreshing, if disturbing the first time, this reading I found it to be a fictional horror novel. The realization he describes sounds unattainable, soulless, and cold....the vampire analogy is apt. It's like a shunting into a parrallel universe, running near the "enlightenment" track, but on its dark side. I do like that he turns notions of enlightenment on their head, but suggests that the act of doing so means he' has the correct view of enlightenment. Just another little shop of horrors.

What you are, Adi, cannot come and go. What you are must always be present. All of those are things that come and go. What you are is what notices all that comes and goes; that is always present. That is not a thing, it's a presence. Realize what that is and it's obvious that you are thatpresence in which all things come and go.

"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

kiki wrote:What you are, Adi, cannot come and go. What you are must always be present. All of those are things that come and go. What you are is what notices all that comes and goes; that is always present. That is not a thing, it's a presence. Realize what that is and it's obvious that you are thatpresence in which all things come and go.

My body doesn't come and go. Well not in this lifetime. Cant my body be me here and now? Why can't what you are come and go anyway? Who says it can't? This presence you speak of that notices all that comes and goes, isn't it just the mind? I really want to understand this but I have yet to grasp it fully. I see no evidence that "I" is not simply just my mind.

Yes, a body is here, but is it the "me"? If you stop and just reflect on your life carefully isn't it true that there is something that has never changed over time despite the obvious changes taking place in the body? Without referencing anything about the body, without any thoughts relating to the body there is something still present that has nothing to do with the body. No matter what happens to the body, you will realize there is a changelessness at the core of it all. If something should happen to the body, like the loss of a limb or organ, would that diminish in any way the sense of presence, the sense of existence, the sense that you are here fully? Would you be any less you if you lost some body parts?

Why can't what you are come and go anyway?

Here's the short answer: Because what we call "my life" requires a fundamental continuity, and if what you are comes and goes that continuity wouldn't be there.

Here's the long answer: This is a very subtle point that is hard for the mind to grasp, but it becomes more clear when you investigate it for yourself. For something to come and go time is required, right? Between the two events of coming and going objects (including the body) undergo a change; they age and ultimately disappear at different rates depending on what the object is.

Transcendent to those objects is the observing presence of the actual you, consciousness. That means it's present when objects are present as well as when objects are not present. That consciousness is not affected in any way by the changes taking place in the object; there isn't an increase or decrease in the amount of it or the quality of it. It simply remains fully and completely present, always. The nature of that consciousness is a simple "knowingness". It is the "knowingness" nature of consciousness that is the foundation for the continuity of life. It is the hub around which all the coming and going forms of life revolve.

In the gap between the going of one object and the arising of the next that unchanging consciousness remains; it's fully alert and "knowing" of the fact that that object has dissolved (this is most easily seen when you simply sit quietly with eyes closed and note carefully what takes place). The body is just one of those forms - it comes, it goes, yet something remains. In that gap between objects time seems to stop because there is no "thing" present to indicate time, so consciousness becomes alert to the presence of itself. The realization that you are that unchanging consciousness/presence is what awakening is about. That "you" is not a separate and distinct entity, it is impersonal consciousness.

That consciousness/you is in the timeless dimension of the eternal now. Eternal means outside of time, it doesn't mean endless time. It does not require time to be here like objects do, and because it's not an object it has no qualities that are subject to change (coming and going). That which comes and goes requires time, but the noticing presence/you is stable, unchanging, timeless, eternal - That's the continuity. What you really are is the touchstone, the silent witness of all experience. Without that consciousness/you/presence literally no experience would be possible.

This presence you speak of that notices all that comes and goes, isn't it just the mind?

Just stop a moment and reflect deeply - what notices mind/thought, or anything for that matter? How does one "know" a thought is present? Can a thought know another thought? How would that even work? Can you see the absurdity of that notion? Mustn't there be the presence of "knowingness" in order to "know" thought? If one were to put a name to that "knowingness" what word comes to mind? Is the knowing of that word dependent upon that word? Read through this paragraph several times very slowly.

I really want to understand this but I have yet to grasp it fully.

Trying to grasp it fully with the mind is futile until you realize it directly for yourself. People will get very confused and frustrated if they don't see what's transcendent to mind, the underlying consciousness.

I see no evidence that "I" is not simply just my mind.

OK, investigate that directly. Look for the "I" in the mind. Be as precise as you can be. Where exactly is it in the mind? What precisely in the mind is this "I"? I know you have ideas in the mind about the me/I, but those are just thoughts, right? Which thought makes the "I", or is there more than one thought that does that? What happens when the thought of "I" isn't there?

If you investigate for yourself you will realize that you, like almost everyone, have been holding some unexamined assumptions about who you are. Almost nobody questions or challenges the basic assumption about their identity. In other words, nearly everyone identifies with their mind without even realizing it. It's time to look and see if those assumptions are true or not. That is the beginning of the journey.

So, instead of trying to solve this with your mind learn to take a step back and notice what's already fully present to the mind. When you actually realize this you will see that nothing else is possible without the presence of what you really are. Then you will be able to "grok" it.

"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

kiki wrote:If you stop and just reflect on your life carefully isn't it true that there is something that has never changed over time despite the obvious changes taking place in the body?

I can honestly say that I cannot see any evidence that this is true. I was born with a body and a brain that produces a mind. All of these things have changed over time. The thing that is pondering right now if there is something that has never changed is my mind. The only way I have to ask this question is with my mind.

kiki wrote:
Without referencing anything about the body, without any thoughts relating to the body there is something still present that has nothing to do with the body.

This is my mind.

kiki wrote:
No matter what happens to the body, you will realize there is a changelessness at the core of it all. If something should happen to the body, like the loss of a limb or organ, would that diminish in any way the sense of presence, the sense of existence, the sense that you are here fully? Would you be any less you if you lost some body parts?

No I would still have a mind a less functioning body. If my body completely died then so too would the mind and life for me is over.

kiki wrote:
Just stop a moment and reflect deeply - what notices mind/thought, or anything for that matter? How does one "know" a thought is present? Can a thought know another thought? How would that even work? Can you see the absurdity of that notion? Mustn't there be the presence of "knowingness" in order to "know" thought? If one were to put a name to that "knowingness" what word comes to mind? Is the knowing of that word dependent upon that word? Read through this paragraph several times very slowly.

No I dont think this is absurd. I reflect deeply a lot. In my experience I have a thought then if I am being mindful or meditating perhaps a few seconds later or a split second later I recognise that I had a thought in the past tense. So I have a thought that I had a thought. To me they are all thoughts, one is not thought and one consciousness.
It does not appear to happen simultaneously like there is another part of myself being aware of the thoughts as they actually occur. If this were so then I might be able to grasp this concept more easily but this has never happened for me. It is just one thought after another.

kiki wrote:
Trying to grasp it fully with the mind is futile until you realize it directly for yourself. People will get very confused and frustrated if they don't see what's transcendent to mind, the underlying consciousness.

It has been driving me a little crazy But i just dont see it. Sometimes I just let go because I think maybe Im trying too hard but it makes no difference.

kiki wrote:
Which thought makes the "I", or is there more than one thought that does that? What happens when the thought of "I" isn't there?

Yes its many thoughts. When they aren't there I am still here but just not consciously aware of it.

kiki wrote:
If you investigate for yourself you will realize that you, like almost everyone, have been holding some unexamined assumptions about who you are. Almost nobody questions or challenges the basic assumption about their identity. In other words, nearly everyone identifies with their mind without even realizing it. It's time to look and see if those assumptions are true or not. That is the beginning of the journey.

I challenge and investigate all the time but all I ever see is a mind and a body

kiki wrote:
So, instead of trying to solve this with your mind learn to take a step back and notice what's already fully present to the mind. When you actually realize this you will see that nothing else is possible without the presence of what you really are. Then you will be able to "grok" it.

Unless some penny drops at some point Im not sure Ill ever grasp it. Ive been trying for years but its all just concepts and constructs by other people so far of how they see their own life, presence etc. For me I am still just a mind and a body.

Don't give up. My advice is to continue to meditate which will begin to create some space between thoughts. Those gaps aren't noticed at first because we are so used to being bombarded by thought stream, but eventually the gap begins to widen. In that space, in that gap between thoughts, awareness shines. It is silent and still, yet aware. Once you become more familiar with awareness you'll notice it more and more, even when thoughts are arising.

I meditated for 27 years before things "clicked" for me. That doesn't mean you will need to meditate that long though. My breakthrough was when I saw how thought constructed the "me" that I identified with, and a large part of that identification swirled around being a "meditator". The clincher was when I realized that there was awareness present throughout this whole time, but it had been overlooked because I was so focused on attaining "something special". In other words, my meditation practice was future oriented, and that kept me from noticing the present moment, the now. But what you are isn't anything special, it is ordinary everyday consciousness/awareness that is always here, yet that consciousness is vital to everything else.

So, relax about trying to "get it" with the mind and do your meditation practice without an agenda to gain anything from it. You can't force understanding, especially when you are so dominated by mind identification. Just relax more and more without struggling to understand anything and eventually insight will arise on its own (that's your real teacher, your own insight born of direct experience). No amount of explanations from me or anyone else will take you there. All anyone else can do is point to what is seen, but it's up to you to figure out how that seeing works. Once that happens you'll understand all of those explanations from others that escaped you before.

"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

kiki wrote:Don't give up. My advice is to continue to meditate which will begin to create some space between thoughts. Those gaps aren't noticed at first because we are so used to being bombarded by thought stream, but eventually the gap begins to widen. In that space, in that gap between thoughts, awareness shines. It is silent and still, yet aware. Once you become more familiar with awareness you'll notice it more and more, even when thoughts are arising.

I meditated for 27 years before things "clicked" for me. That doesn't mean you will need to meditate that long though. My breakthrough was when I saw how thought constructed the "me" that I identified with, and a large part of that identification swirled around being a "meditator". The clincher was when I realized that there was awareness present throughout this whole time, but it had been overlooked because I was so focused on attaining "something special". In other words, my meditation practice was future oriented, and that kept me from noticing the present moment, the now. But what you are isn't anything special, it is ordinary everyday consciousness/awareness that is always here, yet that consciousness is vital to everything else.

So, relax about trying to "get it" with the mind and do your meditation practice without an agenda to gain anything from it. You can't force understanding, especially when you are so dominated by mind identification. Just relax more and more without struggling to understand anything and eventually insight will arise on its own (that's your real teacher, your own insight born of direct experience). No amount of explanations from me or anyone else will take you there. All anyone else can do is point to what is seen, but it's up to you to figure out how that seeing works. Once that happens you'll understand all of those explanations from others that escaped you before.

Thanks Kiki for your kind advise. I shall continue my practise and try not to be too obsessed with getting a result.